Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, FL.
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Nov;33(11):547-552. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001579.
To determine the optimal fixation method [intramedullary nail (IMN) vs. plate fixation (PF)] for treating critical bone defects with the induced membrane technique, also known as the Masquelet technique.
Retrospective cohort study.
Four Level 1 Academic Trauma Centers.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: All patients with critical bone defects treated with the induced membrane technique, or Masquelet technique, between January 1, 2005, and January 31, 2018.
Operative treatment with a temporary cement spacer to induce membrane formation, followed by spacer removal and bone grafting at 6-8 weeks.
Time to union, number/reason for reoperations, time to full weight-bearing, and any complications.
One hundred twenty-one patients (56 tibias and 65 femurs) were treated with a mean follow-up of 22 months (range 12-148 months). IMN was used in 57 patients and plates in 64 patients. Multiple grafting procedures were required in 10.5% (6/57) of those with IMN and 28.1% (18/64) of those with PF (P = 0.015). Reoperation for all causes occurred in 17.5% (10/57) with IMN and 46.9% (30/64) with PF (P = 0.001). Average time to weight-bearing occurred at 2.44 versus 4.63 months for those treated with IMN and plates, respectively (P = 0.002). The multivariable adjusted analysis showed that PF is 6.4 times more likely to require multiple grafting procedures (P = 0.017) and 7.7 times more likely to require reoperation (P = 0.003) for all causes compared with IMN."
This is the largest study to date evaluating the Masquelet technique for critical size defects in the femur and tibia. Our results indicate that patients treated with IMN had faster union, fewer grafting procedures, and fewer reoperations for all causes than those treated with plates, with differences more evident in the femur. The authors believe this is a result of both the development of an intramedullary canal and circumferential stress on the graft with early weight-bearing when using an IMN, as opposed to a certain degree of stress shielding and delayed weight-bearing when using PF. We, therefore, recommend the use of an IMN whenever possible as the preferred method of fixation for tibial and femoral defects when using the Masquelet technique.
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
确定使用诱导膜技术(也称为 Masquelet 技术)治疗临界骨缺损的最佳固定方法 [髓内钉(IMN)与钢板固定(PF)]。
回顾性队列研究。
4 个 1 级学术创伤中心。
患者/参与者:2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 1 月 31 日期间,采用诱导膜技术(Masquelet 技术)治疗临界骨缺损的所有患者。
采用临时水泥间隔物进行手术治疗,以诱导膜形成,然后在 6-8 周时取出间隔物并进行植骨。
愈合时间、再次手术的次数/原因、完全负重时间和任何并发症。
121 例患者(56 例胫骨和 65 例股骨)接受了平均 22 个月(12-148 个月)的随访。57 例患者使用 IMN,64 例患者使用钢板。IMN 组中有 10.5%(6/57)例和 PF 组中有 28.1%(18/64)例需要多次植骨(P=0.015)。IMN 组有 17.5%(10/57)例和 PF 组有 46.9%(30/64)例因各种原因再次手术(P=0.001)。使用 IMN 和钢板的患者分别在 2.44 个月和 4.63 个月时达到负重时间(P=0.002)。多变量调整分析显示,与 IMN 相比,PF 更有可能需要多次植骨(P=0.017)和更有可能因各种原因需要再次手术(P=0.003)。
这是迄今为止评估 Masquelet 技术治疗股骨和胫骨临界尺寸缺损的最大研究。我们的结果表明,与钢板相比,使用 IMN 的患者具有更快的愈合、更少的植骨手术和更少的所有原因的再次手术,而在股骨中差异更为明显。作者认为,这是由于在早期负重时,IMN 会在髓腔内形成一个通道并对移植物施加周向应力,而 PF 则会产生一定程度的应力屏蔽和延迟负重,从而导致这种结果。因此,我们建议在使用 Masquelet 技术治疗胫骨和股骨缺损时,只要可能,就应使用 IMN 作为首选固定方法。
治疗 III 级。请参阅作者说明,以获取完整的证据水平描述。